Tony McNulty: The Home Secretary announced on 20 July our intention to consult on a possible review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This is part of our ongoing programme to look at custody and related processes, a key objective of which is to simplify and streamline procedures to free up police officer time for operational activity outside the police station. That is why, for example, we have enabled the arresting officer to grant street bail, use street disposals such as fixed penalty notices and penalty notices for disorder, and why, in 2002, under the work force modernisation programme, we allowed chief officers to designate civilian staff to carry out functions previously performed by the arresting officer, such as escort, detention and case preparation tasks.

Damian Green: The Minister seems to ignore the reality of what happens with our police. A few weeks ago I was doing what Members in all parts of the House do—accompanying a police patrol on a Friday night. The police were confronted by an abusive and potentially violent young man. After they had settled the incident, I asked them why they had not arrested the young man, as they certainly could have done. They said that if they had arrested him, it would have taken the whole three-person patrol out of action for three hours—the crucial period for patrolling the town centre. Is the Minister not worried that about the fact that after nine years of government by his party, the police are afraid to use their arresting powers because if they do they will be prevented from doing their real job of protecting the public?

John Reid: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are powers for the tackling of go-peds and mini-motos, which are a danger and a chronic nuisance to many people not just in her constituency but elsewhere, but she is right to say that enforcement of those powers is patchy throughout the country. That is one of the reasons why we spent some £200,000 over the summer on an information campaign to try to heighten the awareness of practitioners such as local authorities and police forces—as well as that of the public—of the ways of tackling the nuisance that lie in their own hands.
	The campaign has been a success in many areas, although it has been used to a limited extent in my hon. Friend's area. I believe that there has been one seizure and five warnings, which is a relatively small result compared to that in many other areas. However, I hope that the increasing availability of information will encourage local authorities and police to take action against something that is becoming a terrible nuisance for many people.

Simon Hughes: Three years ago, I spent some time dealingwith the tragedy of a youngster who was killed as a result of a collision caused by another youngster on a motorcycle. This weekend I spent some time witha family that had lost a 19-month old youngster as a result of a four-wheeled vehicle that was apparently stolen and driven by other youngsters. I accept that the figures show that the number of such crimes leading to fatalities has, happily, gone down considerably. However, will the Home Secretary review the way in which young people are educated so that they understand that potential fatalities can be caused by that sort of behaviour? The best way is to show them the results, to persuade them that their own younger brothers or sisters, or they themselves, could be the next victims, as opposed to the people who cause the deaths.

John Reid: I believe that the existing controls are sufficient. As I pointed out earlier, the present powers stem from at least two Acts—the Police ReformAct 2002 and the Road Traffic Act 1988—and include powers of seizure, powers to destroy, warning letters, acceptable behaviour contracts, parenting contracts, dispersal powers, noise abatement powers and antisocial behaviour orders. As well as that range of powers, we also encourage legitimate use. At this stage, we are not of the opinion that mini-motorcycles should be banned completely, but where they are being misused we have made available a range of powers. Those are being used throughout the country, albeit patchily, and we are attempting to spread their use more widely.

Liam Byrne: The time for initial decisions at Harmondsworth and Oakington was14 days and 12 days respectively. Overall, 76 per cent. of initial claims are decided within eight weeks, compared with 20 months in 1996. My briefing then reads: "These figures are taken from internal management information and may be subject to change prior to publication in official Home Office statistics".

Stephen O'Brien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance in relation to the Department of Health's major policy announcement made through the newspapers after the House rose in July that it is out-sourcing to DHL NHS Logistics and most of its purchasing and supply operations worth about £4 billion per annum. The policy was implemented on 1 October, while we were still in recess but was not announced or debated on the Floor of the House. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health on 16 August raising questions of policy and parliamentary accountability, eventually to receive a reply from her Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), dated 16 October—two months later—in which he relied on, and attached a copy of, a letter from his predecessor to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) dated9 July 2005, saying that a copy could be found in the Library. The Library confirms that a copy of that letter was placed there only on 16 September 2006—a full14 months after it was written and, intriguingly, a month after my letter and the press coverage in the early part of the most recent recess. I am sure that the House will draw its own conclusions from that, Mr. Speaker, but far from deterring me from smelling a rat, could you advise me as to whether it is for you to investigate the quality of ministerial responses or whether it is a matter for the Leader of the House, in the light of his recent pronouncements about the quality of ministerial responses? I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber today.

Tim Loughton: I shall not detain the House long, not least because of the enormous number of amendments—some 207 amendments and 23 new clauses have been tabled by the Government, and nearly all were tabled during the past few days, despite the fact that theBill completed its Committee stage some months ago. The short time available raises questions about the ability of the House properly to scrutinise the radical amendments submitted by the Government.
	The Minister has not moved a Ways and Means motion before, but I assume he is able to respond. It would be useful if he could give us some assurances about the extent to which increases may take place. According to the notes accompanying the proposals, the capital start-up costs are likely to be £7.58 million in the financial year 2006-07, and £6.92 million inthe financial year 2007-08, which is an estimated£14.5 million in capital start-up costs.
	Given the record—the form—of the Government in respect of overshooting by large margins estimates for the sums that they are spending on computer projects across a number of Departments, let alone their inability to stay within set dates, I ask the Minister to give us his view as to how realistic the estimates I have just mentioned are, because they will, of course, impact on the charges that the ways and means motion gives rise to.
	In the covering notes, it is stated that the Government anticipate that there will be an operating cost of between £16 million and £18 million per annum over the first five years, on top of the costs of the current work of the Criminal Records Bureau. It is stated that that might lead by 2008 to an increase in the fee charged to applicants, which this motion will give rise to. Can we have some greater clarity as to how likely such an increase will be?
	We are told that an extra 200 staff will be required in the CRB and the IBB. We are not told how many of those staff are likely to be retained within the public sector, or how many are likely to be contracted out—using a company such as Capita, which I gather was closely involved in the original CRB contract, only for long delays to transpire and for part of the contract to have to be subcontracted out to Bombay, which caused a number of further problems. Given that the CRB is still operating under a deficit—although it aims to have a surplus in the current financial year—this House has concerns, and it needs to be assured in respect of how realistic the level of fees that are set now will be by the time that this legislation comes into force.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend is right to be circumspect about the motion. Its terms might prove to be innocuous; but, on the other hand, they might prove not to be. On the strength of his perusal of its details, does my hon. Friend think thatan increase in fees would necessitate a decision on the part of the Government to pursue the affirmative procedure, or would it be possible for the Government to go about such an increase, possibly of an unspecified character, without further consultation with the House?

John Redwood: I have declared my interest in the Register of Members' Interests; I am a company director, but I am obviously not pursuing its interests in this debate. I am worried about the resolution's proving to be a tax on jobs—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member forSt. Albans (Anne Main). It is a great pity that the original system has not worked as well as planned, and that we now need this expensive new one to try to ensure that people are properly protected.
	Given the phenomenal improvements of modern technology, in most parts of the world and in most cases the application of such technology cuts the cost of doing things and makes it easier to do them. But in the case of this Government, we often seem to find that the application of new technology makes it more difficult to do things, that they are done less well, and that a large amount of money has to be spent on remedial action. Indeed, I find it disappointing that the Minister did not give us some financial information when initiating this short debate. This is not an aperitif to the main meal: it is a very important subject in its own right.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans said, in effect, we are talking about taxing institutions and people who are trying to do their best in public service, for example, and it is very important that the Minister and his colleagues have proper controls over the setting up and efficiency of this operation, how it controls its costs and how it uses new computing systems to lower those costs. There should be no automatic assumption that when the costs and fees are reviewed in subsequent years, they are going to go up. It would be quite nice to have an assumption that they will be coming down because computing and efficiency measures will be applied to reduce them, as happens in the competitive market in comparable service areas outside this Government's dream world, in which they can always claim more money from the taxpayer to do such things.
	So although the Opposition do not wish to detain the House unduly or to stop the benign intentions behind the underlying measure, the Government should take much more seriously the question of how much all this is going to cost, how they are going to ensure that this board keeps its costs under control, and whether it could surprise us all in two or three years' time by announcing that it has got better at doing these things and could have a fee cut, rather than an increase. I fear, however, that we are going to have more of the same. We have had an inflation-busting fee increase recently and unless the Minister gets a grip, we will have the same again in a few years' time. So I hope that he will look again at this issue.

Judy Mallaber: I agree. The matter came to my attention through coverage of one of the big CeBIT international fairs in Hamburg. In the massive exhibition, someone had surveillance products, especially child location products. He said, "I can't understand why every parent hasn't rushed to pick up my teddy pack. You can just pop it in your child's rucksack and have peace of mind." How can there be peace of mind if we do not know whether the person who provided the equipment and popped it into a child's rucksack was a parent or a paedophile? How does the organisation selling the product know whether parents or paedophiles have bought it?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) is right that the escalation of the technology is getting grossly out of hand and we must take hold of it and regulate it somehow. The mass market is being bombarded with one product after another. It is getting bigger and bigger, with more and more different products. It begins with a simple Teddyfone, which is attractive to a child. It would be easy for someone to persuade a child to take one. One may know the location of the Teddyfone, but not necessarily that of the child or whether the child is with the Teddyfone. It should not give peace of mind. The person who has given it to a child could also be tracking it because it can act as a listening-in device. As soon as someone phones it, it states the child's location. That is dangerous and we have not got the matter under control.
	My hon. Friend is right that there is a code of practice, which was drawn up with the mobile phone networks, so it covers only that part of the technology—not new forms of satellite technology. That is great if people need to know where someone is if they have had an accident or if somebody wants to use the sat nav system in their car, but not so good if a child is being tracked through that technology, or a jealous stalker is chasing someone. We really do not have the way of controlling it that we need.
	Although there is a code of practice, it has turned out to be woefully inadequate, and I gave some examples in my speech on my ten-minute Bill. Just in the previous couple of weeks, three journalists had managed to track people without their knowing, outwith the provisions of the code, and they did not meet the requirements of the code. Even in respect of the technology to which the code is meant to apply, it has not been operated properly.
	We need to get to grips with this matter. Indeed, the person who put me on to looking at it was the adviser to the children's charities on internet and technology issues, who himself was involved in drawing up the code of practice—he definitely knows about it. One of a number of organisations that have contacted me since I introduced my ten-minute Bill is a company, whose representative has
	"sat on the Codes of Practice for Location Based Services since its inception and run what has been 'audited' by the networks as the best of the best. I strongly support licensing of this industry".
	That comes from within the respectable end of the industry.
	Action on Rights for Children welcomes my Bill, saying:
	"We are extremely concerned about the rapidly expanding market in devices to track the whereabouts of children and young people. We believe this to be a classic example of a technology looking for a market, which in this case has been created by the exploitation of parents' understandable, though largely groundless, fears for their children's safety."
	We need to manage—to regulate—this industry. What made me realise that we might be able to do that through this Bill was the welcome inclusion of the provisions on vetting those involved in moderating chat services, which already introduce an element of control of the use of technology on the internet. We have done extraordinarily well in the work that has been done in trying to control other areas of abuse on the internet, such as child pornography, although we are always running to catch up, but let us grab hold of this one before it is too late.
	I suggested on Second Reading and in Committee that we should try to amend paragraph 2(1)(e) of schedule 3, which is about moderators of chat rooms, but my hon. Friend the Minister wrote to me to say that that would not work in terms of the wording. I accept that, which is why my colleagues and Ihave tabled an amendment proposing a separate paragraph 2(1)(f), which would make this an additional activity to be regulated. It would not have the same force and range of licensing measures, which I would like us to move towards, but at least it would ensure that those who are involved in providing devices that can be a force for good, but also a potential force for evil, are subject to checks to make sure that they are responsible enough to be allowed to do so.
	We could then perhaps follow up from that and talk about what other provision we should have for licensing, which I would like to have, in ensuring that the products are given only to the right people, and that there are checks, proper regulations and a proper regime in force on the provision and use of such equipment.
	We are walking into a world where we could each easily be subject to surveillance without knowing it. If we do not get to grips with that now, it will be too late, and perhaps in a year we will be asking, "Why didn't we get to grips with it?" We have been very slow. The Department of Trade and Industry even gave an enterprise award to one of those products. When we queried whether it should not have checked that out with the children's organisations in relation to child safety issues, it said, "Why should we?"
	That product supposedly deals with child safety, but the DTI had not clicked about that. Often, there is no matching up between Departments on what should happen, so the DTI does not necessarily know about the good work and expertise that rest, for example, in the Home Office. The Department for Education and Skills does not necessarily know about some of that technology and some ways in which we need to control it.
	I urge that we take this issue on board and include it as an activity in relation to which we at least ensure that the people providing such services are properly regulated and vetted. We should move to a system of proper licensing for this area of technology. Otherwise, we may just find, even in a year, that we regret not grabbing it early when we had the chance.

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Lady for reinforcing my point. I do not see how the provisions can be communicated to everyone to whom they apply. I hope that the Minister will address that matter.
	Amendments Nos. 258 to 260 were tabled by meand my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East(Sarah Teather), and I want to explain why it is necessary to delete "reason to believe" and instead insert "suspects". The aim is to restrict the offence of use of a person not subject to monitoring to situations where it can be established that a regulated activity provider had actual knowledge or suspicion that someone was barred. We debated that many times in Committee. Given the decisions that will be made, we thought that precision was needed, and that we must not risk criminalising people in cases in which there might be genuine lack of knowledge.
	There is a crucial difference between clauses 9 and 10, which is why our amendments address clause 10 in particular. Clause 9 relates to people who are barred, but clause 10 relates to the use of people who are not subject to monitoring. Using barred people for regulated activities is far more serious than using someone who is not monitored, as the use of the former obviously poses a greater risk to children and the vulnerable. That is not to imply that the use of a person who is not subject to monitoring is not a serious matter—it is. If a regulated activity is carried out by such an employee, severe disciplinary action, and even dismissal, may well result.
	Our concern, however, is that the creation of offences targeted at people who make mistakes is excessive. Mistakes will be made, especially while the complicated system beds down. We suggest that, for a successful prosecution, the defendant must, at the very least, have some knowledge of the fact that someone is barred, but have failed to act on that knowledge. In other words, we would restrict criminalisation to situations in which, although the person "suspects", rather than "has reason to believe", that someone is not subject to monitoring, they still allow them to engage in regulated activity. I hope that the Minister will address that important point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will speak to the amendments that he tabled, which are supported by our Front-Bench team, but first I should like to make a few comments. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) mentioned family and friends. Liberal Democrat Members thinkit important to make it clear that the probable regulations on powers of attorney and guardianship should be all-encompassing, because they involve the handing over of a great deal of power. For example, someone might name a person as their attorney long before that power is used, and of course things could change in the intervening period. A personal friend of 15 years ago may have been involved in unacceptable activity in the intervening period. I would particularly like the Minister to address that point of view.
	As I said on Second Reading, we are concerned that there is an information flow, for example between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office of the Public Guardian. If either of those bodies learns something about somebody—for example, if there is a revocation of the power of attorney—will that be conveyed to the independent barring board, and will the board transfer information? I leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam to lead a detailed debate on the amendments, but I hope that the Minister will pay particular attention to my point about new clause 1.

Paul Burstow: I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on her amendment. I support both the spirit and the letter of that provision, because it deals with an important issue that must be aired and resolved—if possible, by means of the amendment, or reassurances from the Minister.
	I welcome the extension of the remit of the legislation to chat room moderators. A few years ago I was a member of the Home Office's internet child protection taskforce, which was responsible for a number of issues, not least the drafting of those parts of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, considered by the House in the last Parliament, that created the new offence of grooming. It is an important subject, and I was determined to be involved, as at the time I was dealing with constituency cases that centred on grooming. Any developments under the Bill to further protect young and vulnerable people are only to be welcomed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) rightly asked whether we can be satisfied tonight that the Bill can safely pass from the House and be put to bed. I have tabled amendments Nos. 192 to 196 because I and a number of organisations outside the House are not entirely confident that that is the case. As she said, my amendments attempt to clarify how far the Bill will help to safeguard one of the most vulnerable groups of people in our land—those who lack capacity, who do not have the ability to make decisions for themselves and who necessarily have to rely on others to make decisions about their financial and other welfare considerations.
	Throughout the progress of the Mental CapacityAct 2005, questions were asked in both Houses about how far there would be checks on people who act as attorneys, deputies or appointees from the Department for Work and Pensions because those people will have responsibility for the finances of vulnerable people. Attorneys and deputies also have decision-making powers over welfare. If the Bill is to do what it rightly says it aims to do—protect and safeguard vulnerable groups—it must ensure that someone who is barred from working with vulnerable people does not move on to a less well-policed part of the system and exercises power under the 2005 Act as an attorney, deputy, appointee, public guardian or court protection visitor.
	The main thrust of the amendments—I am grateful to Age Concern in particular for its help and assistance in drafting them—is to probe how far the various lists work with each other: in other words, how the various agencies set up under mental capacity legislationwill interface with the barring board and the barring register. For example, if someone has their attorneyship, deputyship or appointeeship revoked, as my hon. Friend said, because they have caused harm to a vulnerable person, that information should be passed to the barring board. Similarly, the barring board should inform the Office of the Public Guardian and the Department for Work and Pensions of those whom they have barred.
	Amendment No. 192 would clarify beyond doubt that where a family member or a friend is acting in the capacity of an attorney, deputy or appointee, that activity is regulated. I welcome the Government amendment which is intended to deal with that in part, but what information will be given to attorneys, deputies and appointees—this thread has run through the debate—to explain to them that they will be covered by the Bill's provisions? Will that be provided in the forms and guidance that are made available to them?
	Amendment No. 193 would ensure that the Court of Protection, the Office of the Public Guardian and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions are under a duty to check whether a person who will be involved with the finances and personal welfare decisions of someone who lacks capacity is barred from working with vulnerable groups. What form of risk assessment will be put in place within those organisations to decide when checks with the barring register are necessary? Will there be consultation with organisations such as Age Concern and other interested parties about precisely how that risk assessment might be implemented and on what occasions it might be necessary to make a reference to the barring register?
	Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 would ensure that the Office of the Public Guardian and the DWP were alerted when someone is subsequently barred by the barring board. Otherwise, someone with a record of abuse could continue to abuse as an appointee, deputy or attorney, and that surely cannot be right. Will the barring board see it as part of its duty to alert other organisations when it becomes aware that those people are also appointees and attorneys? AmendmentNo. 196 would ensure that those officials of the Office of the Public Guardian and the Court of Protection who visit people in private—again, I am talking about people who lack capacity and are most vulnerable—are also subject to checks.
	There are clearly a number of areas where the Government are extending the measure. They have listened to representations. Further categories of persons will have direct access to vulnerable people who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves. Those vulnerable people should be afforded the same protection as those who are in a chat room on the internet. That is why I hope that the Minister will give us a positive response.

'(1) This section has effect in respect of fees which may be prescribed in relation to applications for monitoring under section 21.
	(2) In setting a fee for an application made during the period of five years beginning with the commencement of that section, the Secretary of State may take account of expenditure incurred, or which he thinks will be incurred, by him before the end of that period (taking one financial year with another)—
	(a) in connection with the operation of IBB (including payments under paragraph 10A of Schedule 1);
	(b) in respect of any other expenditure of the Secretary of State in connection with his functions under this Act.
	(3) In setting a fee for an application made after that period, the Secretary of State may take account of expenditure incurred, or which he thinks will be incurred, by him—
	(a) in making payments under paragraph 10A ofSchedule 1;
	(b) in respect of any other expenditure of the Secretary of State in connection with his functions under this Act.
	(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), it is immaterial that any expenditure is incurred before the commencement of section 21.
	(5) The power to prescribe fees is exercisable only with the consent of the Treasury.
	(6) Fees received by the Secretary of State by virtue ofsection 21(1)(d) must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.— [Mr. Dhanda.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government amendments Nos. 68, 19 and 109to 111.
	Government new schedule 1— Transfers to IBB—
	Amendment No. 6, in schedule 1, page 36, line 28, leave out sub-sub paragraph (c).

Parmjit Dhanda: The new clause and amendmentsNos. 68 and 109 are designed to provide flexibility for the Secretary of State in setting the vetting and barring scheme fee, and to give the Secretary of State apower to fund the independent barring board directly. Clause 21 currently allows the Secretary of State to set and receive a fee from applicants for monitoring. We want to make it clear that we want to set a fee that will enable the scheme to break even over the first five years of operation, and the new clause achieves that.
	Amendment No. 68 clarifies the Secretary of State's power to waive the fee for those who undertake regulated activity on a voluntary basis. We made that commitment on Second Reading and again in Committee, and I am happy to make it explicit today. Volunteers currently receive Criminal Records Bureau checks free of charge and we shall continue that approach.
	Amendment No. 109 puts in place a mechanism for funding the IBB. The monitoring fee will be payable to the Secretary of State, not direct to the board. The IBB will be a free-standing statutory body, so we need to provide a power for the Secretary of State to pass funding on to it.
	Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 ensure that arrangements for presenting IBB accounts to Parliament are in line with current practice. Amendment No. 19 and new schedule 1 make provision in relation to staff and property transfer schemes. Their purpose is to enable staff who work in the Department on the Protection of Children Act 1999, protection of vulnerable adults and list 99 barring schemes, as well as property deployed for the purposes of the current schemes, to be transferred to the IBB. It is usual to include such a provision in the Bill where staff and property transfers are envisaged. This set of provisions will ensure that the expertise of those operating the POCA, POVA and list 99 barring schemes may be transferred to the new vetting and barring scheme where appropriate. They will also ensure that property, like the IT system, may also be transferred. The detail of such schemes will be developed as part of the process of planning the implementation of the new scheme.
	I commend the provisions to the House.

Parmjit Dhanda: That question raises a couple of issues. First, the hon. Lady has made the good point that we must ensure that the time lag between someone's status changing and an employer being informed that that person is no longer subject to monitoring is as short as possible. Secondly, when new employees—for example, a teacher—enter the work force, it takes a few weeks for the enhanced disclosure to come through. However, schools will be able to use the instant online check while they are waiting for the full enhanced disclosure, which will allow them to determine that individuals are not barred owing to their being subject to monitoring on the online list.
	New clauses 8 to 11 and amendments Nos. 88 to 91 provide for supervisory authorities and professional regulatory bodies to receive more information, including confirmation that the individual is barred. They also consolidate the way that supervisory authorities are defined. Those bodies require that information to help them to carry out their inspection and regulatory functions. The security issues are minimised because only a small number of known bodies need this information. The provisions for supervisory authorities and professional regulatory bodies have therefore been covered separately in the new clauses inserted by the amendments.
	New clauses 7 and 12 create new information offences. The first of those criminalises anyone making a false declaration to access individuals' information illegitimately. The second criminalises employers who, with no right to do so, force individuals to provide the information about their criminal records history that they receive when they apply to be monitored.
	Amendment No. 181 adds data held by the IBB and the Secretary of State in connection with his functions under the Bill to section 56 of the Data ProtectionAct 1998. It thereby criminalises employers who force individuals to make subject access requests for data under the 1998 Act as a condition of employment.
	Amendment No. 73 expands the role of the independent monitor to include reviewing all decisions to withhold police information from an individual under clause 21 and reviewing a sample of the information that is provided to the vetting and barring scheme by the police. The independent monitor's role, as set out in clause 23, covers only police information in connection with Criminal Records Bureau criminal records disclosures. The amendment adds police information in connection with applications for monitoring. That change responds to some of the points raised in the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	New clause 13 and amendments Nos. 77 and 78 make it clear that a finding of fact such as in court proceedings or in an employment tribunal is not necessary for the purpose of any referrals to the IBB. That is because there may be no such proceedings in all the cases where we wish there to be a referral to the IBB. In the Bill as drafted, that was made clear in some of the referral provisions, but not all of them. The amendments remove any doubt.
	The amendments provide for more streamlined flows of information within the scheme and so improve its operation. I therefore ask hon. Members to accept them.

Maria Miller: I welcome several of the new clauses and amendments, which, again, give us the mechanics of how the Bill will work. The lack of those details when we discussed the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee made it difficult to be sure that we had got to grips with the Government's intentions. While we welcome their inclusion at this stage, many Conservative Members wish that they had come a little earlier in the process.
	I should like to focus my comments on our amendments Nos. 197, 198, 250, 3, 4 and 5, which address three key aspects that may not have been at the forefront of the Minister's attention due to his preoccupation with putting some of the detail into the Bill—the quality of the data that the IBB will use, the communication of the implications for employers, and the important issue of overseas workers.
	I thank the Liberal Democrat Members who joined forces with us to support our amendment No. 3, which would establish as a core function of the independent barring board the need to implement a comprehensive communications programme. We examined that matter in detail in Committee. The Bill will affect some10 million people, and, although we made some progress on the issue in Committee, we seem to have made no progress on getting the Government to address it thereafter.
	As a result of amendments passed in another place, the IBB will have to notify by recorded letter individuals who have been barred. A Government amendment that we shall consider today will place a duty on a court to inform people that they have been barred as a resultof a court decision. Those are examples of good communication of information. Also, the Minister has made it clear that local authorities should inform those receiving direct payments of the existence of the monitoring scheme, so that they can make use of it if required. That, too, is an example of good communication taking place. However, nowhere in the Bill is there a requirement to ensure adequate communication to employers and employees on these important matters.
	Amendment No. 3 would place a duty on the IBB to implement a comprehensive communication plan. Given that the Bill makes it a criminal act to apply for a job while barred, if that job is monitored—as a large number will be—we believe that it will be imperative to communicate the implications of the Bill to all those involved. That should be provided for in the Bill. When we raised this matter in Committee, the Minister said that those communications would be made when the individual was barred. However, he has made it clear again today that he fully intends to increase the number of people and jobs being monitored. That will create a fluid situation that will change over time. Surely he must therefore understand the importance of adopting our amendment.
	On the matter of the quality of the data that the IBB will be using to reach its decisions, I was surprised that the Government had not decided to take on board the comments that we made in Committee, because they have taken on board many others. The Minister acknowledged that it was an important issue, and we had a lengthy debate on the problems that have been experienced in this area by the Criminal Records Bureau. He rightly pointed out that only a relatively small number of people—in percentage terms—have experienced problems gaining employment as a result of the CRB putting out incorrect information. In absolute terms, however, thousands of people are affected by the problem, and I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are continuing concerns about the quality of the data being received by the CRB, not least because of the problems that police authorities are having in sharing on a broader basis the information that they hold.
	To include in the Bill a fundamental role for the IBB to have regard to the quality of the data that it receives would safeguard not only employers and employees but the IBB itself, because its reputation would be undermined if people felt that it was not using data of a sufficiently high quality, or that it did not have the means to improve that data over time.
	We examined the issue of overseas workers at length in Committee. I am therefore surprised, as are a number of interest groups, that the Government have made no headway on this matter. In Committee, the Minister acknowledged the importance of this issue, and implied that it would be looked at again on Report. Indeed, he said that more needed to be done in that respect. However, I am not aware that the Government have tabled any amendments or new clauses to deal with the matter.
	In Committee, the Minister said that it was reasonable to raise the matter, but that it was perhaps not quite the right place to tackle the issue of foreign offences. In the spirit of being constructive, I went away to see whether we could table an amendment that could appropriately be included in the Bill—rather than something that was more to do with the offences of foreign nationals. In Committee, the Government quite rightly said that they have introduced measures so that those convicted of sex offences can sign the sexual offences register in the UK. Paragraph 20 of schedule 2 states that inclusion on the foreign barred list would lead to automatic barring in the UK. Those are welcome elements of the Bill, but is the Minister certain that he has full, open and unfettered access to all the relevant convictions held globally by individuals so that he can be satisfied that the measures that he has outlined so far are adequate? I am sure that the answer to that has to be no. We should return to that matter today, particularly given the issue of gaining accurate information from Asia and Africa.
	The amendments that we have tabled take on board the discussion in Committee. We are trying to find a solution to this problem—I think that the Minister has some sympathy with that—and to find a way in which we can highlight to employers that the data being supplied to them from the monitoring organisation may not give them a full picture of the record of the individual, because that individual has not continually resided in the UK. As I understand it, currently the system makes no reference to where an individual has lived and therefore an employer is not able to assess whether the information covers the entire working career of that person.
	The issue is important because, as the Minister knows from our debate in Committee, increasing numbers of people who work in our health service and areas that affect vulnerable adults come from overseas. That is to be welcomed because those people add greatly to the human resources that we have available in the sector, but we should not ignore the problems that that creates in terms of monitoring their history, in the same way that we monitor the history of peoplewho are resident in the UK and have been throughout their career. I hope that the Minister will consider amendment No. 198, which increases the duties of the Secretary of State in respect of getting information about non-resident individuals.
	Importantly, amendment No. 197 makes disclosure of residency in the UK part of the monitoring process. As I am sure that the Minister is aware, we have a group of people working in our medical profession who do not reside in the UK, although they deliver services here. They are an important group who often offer GP or doctor services over weekend periods, when we might not be able to get adequate cover from people who reside in the UK. That opens up another problem. How do we make sure that our monitoring practices are working in the way that they are intended to work? I hope that the Minister is able to listen more to those points now that some of the basic issues in the Bill have been resolved. Perhaps he could think about how we can address that issue as we move forward.

'(1) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain a register for the purposes of this section.
	(2) The Secretary of State must register a person (A) in relation to another (B) if—
	(a) A makes an application to be registered in relationto B,
	(b) the application contains the appropriate declaration,
	(c) the Secretary of State has no reason to believe that the declaration is false, and
	(d) B is subject to monitoring in relation to the regulated activity to which the application relates.
	(3) The appropriate declaration is a declaration by A—
	(a) that he falls within column 1 of a specified entry, and
	(b) that B has consented to the application.
	(4) In this section references to a specified entry are to an entry in the table in Schedule 4 specified by A in his declaration.
	(5) A's application and registration relate—
	(a) if column 2 of the specified entry refers to children, to regulated activity relating to children;
	(b) if column 2 of the specified entry refers to vulnerable adults, to regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults.
	(6) The Secretary of State must notify A if B ceases to be subject to monitoring in relation to the regulated activity to which A's registration relates.
	(7) The requirement under subsection (6) is satisfied if notification is sent to any address recorded against A's name in the register.
	(8) Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) does not apply if the specified entry is 17.
	(9) If B consents to the provision of information to A under section (provision of vetting information) the consent also has effect as consent to any application by A to be registered in relation to B under this section.
	(10) The Secretary of State may prescribe the form, manner and contents of an application for the purposes of this section (including the form and manner of a declaration contained in such an application).'.— [Mr. Cawsey.]
	 Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government newclause 16— Section (Offences: other persons): exclusions and defences.
	Government new clause 17— Office holders: offences.
	Government new clause 18— Sections 12 and (office holders: offences): checks.
	Government new clause 19— Personnel suppliers: failure to check.
	Government new clause 22— Controlled activity: regulations.
	Government amendments Nos. 208 to 210 and 26.
	Amendment No. 254, in page 4, line 10, clause 7, after 'he', insert
	'with the intention of misleading the IBB or a regulated activity provider'.
	Government amendment No. 27
	Amendment No. 255, in page 4, line 19, leave out subsection (3).
	Amendment No. 201, line 21, at end add
	'or did not intend to seek to engage in activity from which he knew he was barred.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 30, 211 to 213, 34, 35, 214, 36, 39 and 215 to 218.
	Amendment No. 256, in page 7, line 10, clause 11, after 'he', insert 'negligently'.
	Government amendments Nos. 219 to 226.
	Amendment No. 257, in page 8, line 22, after 'he', insert 'negligently'.
	Government amendments Nos. 227, 228, 52 to 55, 229 to 234, 236 and 93.
	Government new schedule 2— Employment businesses: failure to check..
	Government new schedule 3— Appropriate verification.

Tim Loughton: This group contains a good many Government amendments, as well as six new clauses and a new schedule. The Minister said that many of the amendments were technical, but there are also some important matters of principle. Moreover, as my hon. Friends and I have already pointed out, we have had to take on a huge amount of new material in a very short time. That will add enormous complication to the Bill, as if it were not complicated enough already. I do not think that this is the best way of pursuing legislation. However helpful the Minister has sought to be—and there have been a few odd meetings—there is still an awful lot of material for us to consider.
	I welcome the strengthening of, for instance, measures relating to the treatment of acts by children and to personnel suppliers. At the beginning of the year there was a furore about paedophiles and other undesirables gaining access to schools, and in Sussex, my part of the world, personnel providers were seen as a weak link. It was a grey area: there was confusion over whose responsibility it was to check the background of certain people, including those supplied to teach or act as classroom assistants. Did responsibility lie with the education authority, or with the commercial business that provided the staff?
	I am slightly confused about the grammatical relationship between amendment No. 209 and clause 6. The amendment would add a third paragraph to subsection (2)(a) and (b). As the word "if" already appears in the first line of the subsection, adding the new paragraph would cause it to appear twice. If that is not the case, why is the new paragraph preceded by a pair of brackets? There may well be a technical point here, if I may be terribly pedantic.
	However, there is also a point to be made about the content of the amendment. It states that someone is a regulated activity provider
	"if the regulated activity is carried out for the purposes of an organisation, his exercise of that responsibility is not subject to supervision or direction by any other person for those purposes".
	Surely that can apply only to single-handed organisations. Surely any person working in an organisation—be it a charity, a voluntary provider, an independent provider, a commercial company or a not-for-profit company—will have a boss, a line manager, someone who is ultimately responsible, unless the organisation is a one-man or one-woman business. In that case, as I understand the amendment, that one person would be the person whose activity would be subject to some form of restriction. I am genuinely slightly mystified, without disagreeing with the point that the amendment is trying to make.
	Amendment No. 26 also seems fairly vague. It, too, refers to clause 6 and the definition of regulated activity providers. It would give the Secretary of State a fairly wide-ranging power by inserting the words
	"The Secretary of State may by order provide that in specified circumstances a person who makes, or authorises the making of, arrangements (of any description) for another to engage in regulated activity either is or is not a regulated activity provider."
	What on earth does that mean? Can the Minister give us any examples of circumstances in which someone whom we would normally expect to be defined as a regulated activity provider engaged in a regulated activity would suddenly be exempt and given a get-out-of-jail card as a result of a determination by the Secretary of State—presumably by means of secondary legislation, not subject to any further ratification by the House? The Minister tried to give examples earlier to make the legislation clearer, but only succeeded in further confusing Opposition Members, at least. Perhaps he will have a better go at it this time.
	Amendment 217 relates to clause 10, entitled "Use of person not subject to monitoring for regulated activity". According to my reading of the amendment, the creation of offences in this context is not retrospective. This is another confusing point, which needs to be made absolutely clear to the many tens of thousands of people who will be subject to the legislation. Those people, who may now be employed quite legitimately, would be subject to restrictions or barred altogether if they applied for their jobs once the legislation was in force.
	Let us say that a person occupies an existing post without having had to fulfil the proposed requirements. The nature of the job may technically change so that it becomes subject to vetting and barring procedures, although the person concerned has not moved to another job. Perhaps he or she works for a local authority. There have been big upheavals in social services and children's services departments. The employee may have previously worked in a department where he or she did not come into contact with any vulnerable groups, because there were no such groups within that department's remit. The department may then have merged with or become subsidiary to another department where other employees come into contact with vulnerable groups, young or adult.
	The employee's job will not necessarily have changed. His or her contract of employment and pay and conditions need not have changed. The job title may or may not have changed; but the organisation or department may have changed. What obligations will that person have at that stage, when continuing to do a job in exactly the same way as it was done the day before the reorganisation? What penalties could befall that person if he or she took no action? Would the defence of not knowing come into play, meaning that the person was not subject to prosecution?
	I welcome Government amendment No 54, largely because we proposed it in Committee. It is a shame that the cameo appearance of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), has apparently ended, because it was he who, in Committee, took up the point that I made in proposing what was then Conservative-led amendment No. 139. What was said can be found in column 131 of the  Hansard Standing Committee report. It was pointed out that given the various changes in the national health service, people were far more likely to come into contact with health providers who were not employed by the NHS, any NHS trust or any division of the NHS. They were providing an activity that was contracted in, as is increasingly happening in the fragmentation of the health service. Would it not be better if it referred to a person providing a form of health care rather than to the various divisions, organisations and structures in which it is provided? That, I believe, is what happens under amendment No. 54, which I certainly welcome. Given that the health authority's contents and purposes no longer exist, the Government have taken out the reference to health authority from the list of what constitutes various health providers.
	Having commented on the main Government amendments, I shall now deal with amendmentNo. 201—the only one in the large group tabled by myself and my hon. Friends. We are minded to divide the House on the amendment, which we believe deals with an important principle, and hope to have the opportunity to do so at some stage.
	The amendment is designed to help the Minister in his inadvertent failure, seen rather glaringly earlier, to decide what is inadvertency and what is not. It is an important point because many people—some have calculated that it could be as many as a third of the adult working population—are inadvertently going to be covered and may become subject to continuous criminal record vetting. Given that 10 million Criminal Records Bureau checks have taken place since 2002, a very large number of the population could now be subject to prosecution if they do not take notice of—and, potentially, take action on—the new legislation.
	The Minister will no doubt agree with our contention—he acknowledged in Committee that the principle was right—that it is unfair to penalise individuals who did not know that they were barred from engaging in an activity. As it stands, there are three main circumstances in which someone commits an offence. Under clause 7, an individual commits an offence if he
	"seeks to engage in regulated activity from which he is barred",
	or
	"offers to engage in regulated activity from which he is barred"
	or
	"engages in regulated activity from which he is barred",
	which is pretty all encompassing. Furthermore, the guilt test is fairly low and the onus of proof lies on the individual to show that they did not know that they were committing an offence, rather than the other way round, whereby it would have to be proved that they were acting misleadingly in trying to disguise committing or intending to commit an offence.
	As the Minister acknowledged in Committee, it is not the Bill's intention to criminalise people who may have been barred but who are not aware, for whatever reason, of the position. Schedule 3, which provides the guts of the legislation, has a very broad scope of regulated activities and will potentially catch thousands of people who are not directly involved in teaching or caring occupations, which form the focus of many of the activities at which the Bill is targeted.

Anne Main: On inadvertent behaviour, does my hon. Friend agree that there is an unequal emphasis in that an employer has to do his bit and try his best, whereas a member of the public or a potential employee who seek to have their behaviour regularised will, if not careful, become criminalised? The degree of latitude afforded to the employee does not seem to be equal to that which is implied by the Minister's comments to be afforded to the employer.

Tim Loughton: With respect, that does not answer the question. The Minister clearly set out his own interpretation of what should be regarded as either inadvertent or deliberate, based on entirely subjective grounds, which have no foundation in the Bill, as Ihave interpreted it. The important point is that the legislation is very complicated and places considerable requirements on a large number of people who currently go about their business in good faith and with no problems whatever, but who are subsequently going to have to take full cognisance of the letter of the law, rather than some discretionary interpretation that the Minister appears to have provided.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend the Member forSt. Albans (Anne Main) may be forgiven for confusing the Minister's intervention with a speech, because he spent rather a long time adding an entirely new dimension to the debate. The subject of frequency did not come up at all when the inadvertency get-out clause, which the Minister has introduced today, was debated earlier. The point is that that is very confusing for hon. Members who are trying to get to the nitty-gritty of the legislation and it will be confusing for those who have to interpret, enforce and enact it, not to mention those who will suffer if they get it wrong. That is why amendment No. 201 is so important.
	Too much onus is being placed on people to prove that they did not know something. It is very difficult to prove a negative. How do I prove that I do not know the capital of Kazakhstan? I should know it, because the film "Borat" is coming out soon and Kazakhstan has been all over the news. However, I cannot actually name the capital. I do know that it has a lot of unhappy members of its Government at present, but I cannot prove that I cannot name it. That is why the amendment is so necessary.

Rob Marris: I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentlemanon the capital of Kazakhstan, but in the terms of clause 7(3) I would argue that I
	"could not reasonably be expected to know"
	that, even as a Member of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman castigated my hon. Friend the Minister for something that was entirely subjective, but amendment No. 201 is entirely subjective, and that is the real problem with it.

Sarah Teather: Does the Minister agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) that the amendments are a more objective test and introduce a safeguard that the Opposition are keen to include in the Bill, but that our amendments introduce a more objective test than amendmentNo. 201?

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Lady failed to answer the question posed to her, so I shall move on.
	Amendment No. 201 provides for a defence where a barred individual seeks to engage in activity without realising that it was regulated activity. As well intentioned as the amendment is, it is unnecessary and could introduce a dangerous loophole that Opposition Members are on the verge of voting to support. We certainly do not wish to criminalise individuals unfairly, so we will ensure that the scheme is well understood. Before the commencement of the Act, guidance will be issued that will provide further detail about what type of activity will be covered by regulated activity. We will consult with stakeholders about the most effective means of ensuring that all those subject to the requirements of the scheme are aware which roles will be covered by the definition of regulated activity. We will also provide an advisory facility to employers and individuals to help them comply with the requirements of the scheme.
	In addition, when an individual is informed that they are barred, the intention is that this communication will include an explanation of the types of activity from which they are barred. Setting this out clearly for newly barred people will help to minimise the risk that the amendment seeks to address. The amendment could in fact introduce a different risk—that unscrupulous barred individuals would seek to escape the offence in the Bill by arguing that they did not know that a particular activity was a regulated activity. That is what Opposition Members are considering supporting in the Lobby this evening. We are trying to keep devious paedophiles out of our schools, and the possibility opened up by the amendment is too great a risk. Hon. Members need to consider their position on the issue.
	Government amendments to which I shall speak later will remove the need for a barred individual to consider the frequency of a particular activity. The definition of regulated activity for the purposes of barring will be simpler to understand as a result. This will make even more remote the likelihood of engaging, or seeking to engage, in regulated activity without knowing that it is regulated activity. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) claims that I am on the side of the employer. That is not the case. We are providing clarity for the employee about the meaning of frequency. He should concentrate and read the Bill to understand that.
	Amendments Nos. 256 and 257 are intended to prevent regulated activity providers or appropriate officers from committing an offence if they fail to make an appropriate check or obtain relevant information where they are not at fault. Amendments Nos. 208 to 210 ensure that the person or body at the top of an organisation is ultimately responsible for checking individuals engaging in regulated activity. If no check is carried out, that person or body would be liable. These amendments are important in ensuring that organisations take their responsibilities seriously.
	The hon. Lady should be reassured that new clauses 15 and 16 and related amendments ensure that individual employees of a regulated activity provider who fail to make a check commit an offence only if their failure to check was due to their act or reckless default. We believe that this is both fair and appropriate. It ensures that individuals take their responsibilities seriously but does not penalise individual employees who are not at fault. I reiterate my previous commitments and the commitments of my noble Friend in the other place that we intend to have widespread ongoing communications to ensure that organisations and individuals are aware of the requirements upon them.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 24— Assessment of Under 18s on the barred lists—
	'(1) IBB must make a referral for therapeutic purposes, as specified in regulations, for a person under the age of 18 included on the children's barred list after representations have been heard.
	(2) IBB must make a referral for therapeutic purposes, as specified in regulations, for a person under the age of 18 included on the adults' barred list after representations have been heard.'.
	Amendment No. 1, in clause 4, page 2, line 24, leave out 'only'.
	Amendment No. 2, page 2, line 28, at end insert—
	'(2A) An appeal under subsection 1 may be made on the grounds that there are issues of fact that were unavailable to IBB at the time it made its decision and which in the opinion of the Tribunal would have been relevant to that decision.'.
	Amendment No. 11, in clause 27, page 18, line 34, leave out 'thinks' and insert 'has reason to suspect'.
	Amendment No. 249, in clause 45, page 31, line 7, at end insert
	'"harm" has the same meaning as in section 31(9) of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) but shall also include financial harm.'.
	Amendment No. 251, in schedule 2, page 31, line 34, leave out paragraph (f).
	Amendment No. 204, in clause 27, page 18, line 44, at end insert—
	'(4B) In this section—
	"harm" means ill-treatment or the impairment of health, dignity or development;
	"dignity" means identity, self esteem and self respect, and inclusion in social participation and interaction,
	"development" means physical, intellectual, emotional, social or behavioural development'
	"health" means physical or mental health,
	"ill-treatment" includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment which are not physical.'.
	Amendment No. 205, in page 18, line 44, at end insert—
	'(4C) In this section harm includes intentionally or negligently causing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer financial loss or deprivation.'.
	New schedule 4— —
	'Transitional provisions
	 Advice by IBB
	1 IBB must provide the Secretary of State with such advice as he requests in connection with—
	(a) any decision in relation to the inclusion of a person in the list kept under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (c. 14);
	(b) any decision in relation to the inclusion of a person in the list kept under section 81 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14);
	(c) any decision in relation to a direction under section 142 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) in relation to a person.
	 Existing restrictions relating to children
	2 (1) This paragraph applies to a person who is—
	(a) included in the list kept under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (individuals considered unsuitable to work with children);
	(b) disqualified from working with children by virtue of an order of the court under section 28, 29 or 29A of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;
	(c) subject to a direction under section 142 of the Education Act 2002 (prohibition from teaching etc).
	(2) The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as he thinks appropriate—
	(a) requiring IBB to include the person in the children's barred list;
	(b) requiring IBB to consider including the person in the children's barred list;
	(c) as to circumstances in which the person may make representations to IBB and the time at which such representations may be made;
	(d) modifying the provisions of this Act so as to enable the person to engage in regulated activity of such description as is specified in the order in such circumstances as are so specified;
	(e) modifying anything done under paragraph 13 or in paragraphs 14 to 19 of Schedule 2 in connection with IBB's consideration of any matter relating to the person.
	(3) An order under this paragraph may contain provision—
	(a) enabling the General Teaching Council for England to make determinations on an application by a person who has ceased to be subject to a direction under section 142 of the Education Act 2002 in relation to his eligibility for registration under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998;
	(b) enabling the General Teaching Council for Wales to make determinations on an application by a person who has ceased to be subject to a direction under section 142 of the Education Act 2002 in relation to his eligibility for registration under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998;
	(c) for the Secretary of State to prescribe the procedurein relation to an application as mentioned in paragraph (a);
	(d) for the Welsh Ministers to prescribe the procedurein relation to an application as mentioned in paragraph (b).
	 Existing restrictions relating to vulnerable adults
	3 (1) This paragraph applies to a person who is included in the list kept under section 81 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (individuals considered unsuitable to work with certain adults).
	(2) The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as he thinks appropriate—
	(a) requiring IBB to include the person in the adults' barred list;
	(b) requiring IBB to consider including the person in the adults' barred list;
	(c) as to circumstances in which the person may make representations to IBB and the time at which such representations may be made;
	(d) modifying the provisions of this Act so as to enable the person to engage in regulated activity of such description as is specified in the order in such circumstances as are so specified;
	(e) modifying anything done under paragraph 13 or in paragraphs 14 to 19 of Schedule 2 in connection with IBB's consideration of any matter relating to the person.
	 Existing restrictions: supplementary
	4 An order under paragraph 2 or 3 may—
	(a) modify any criminal offence created by this Act;
	(b) create any new criminal offence,
	but the penalty for an offence created by virtue of this paragraph must not exceed level 5 on the standard scale.
	 Modifications relating to monitoring
	5 (1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that in relation to permission to engage in regulated activity having effect during the transitional period, references in section 11(1) and (1A) to ascertaining whether B is subject to monitoring in relation to an activity have effect as references to ascertaining whether B is barred from that activity.
	(2) The transitional period is the period—
	(a) beginning with the commencement of section 2, and
	(b) ending with the commencement of section 21.'.
	Government amendment No. 112.
	Amendment No. 252, in schedule 2, page 37, line 13, leave out 'include the person in the children's barred list' and insert—
	'(a) include the person in the children's barred list;
	(b) give the person the opportunity to make representations on any exceptional circumstances warranting removal from the children's barred list if the inclusion is based on a caution.
	(4) If it appears to IBB that it is not appropriate for the person to be included in the list, it must remove him from the list.'.
	Government amendment No. 113.
	Amendment No. 13, in schedule 2, page 37, line 33, after 'if', insert 'on the balance of probabilities'.
	Government amendment Nos. 114 to 118.
	Amendment No. 243, in page 38, line 29, after 'if', insert
	'he has engaged in conduct which, in the opinion of an appropriate professional'.
	Amendment No. 247, in page 38, line 30, leave out 'it appears' and insert 'indicates'.
	Government amendment No. 119.
	Amendment No. 244, in page 38, line 41, at end insert—
	'(5) In subsection (4), "appropriate professional" means any of the following—
	(a) a doctor;
	(b) a psychiatrist;
	(c) a registered social worker;
	(d) a probation officer; or
	(e) a person of a description prescribed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.'.
	Amendment No. 253, in page 39, line 8, leave out 'include the person in the adults' barred list' and insert—
	'(a) include the person in the adults' barred list;
	(b) give the person the opportunity to make representations as to why there are exceptional circumstances warranting removal from the adults' barred list if the inclusion is based on a caution.
	(4) If it appears to IBB that it is not appropriate for the person to be included in the list, it must remove him from the list.'.
	Government amendments No. 121 to 127.
	Amendment No. 245, in page 40, line 11, after 'if', insert
	'he has engaged in conduct which, in the opinion of an appropriate professional'.
	Amendment No. 248, in page 40, line 12, leave out 'it appears' and insert 'indicates'.
	Government amendment No. 128.
	Amendment No. 246, in page 40, line 23, at end insert—
	'(5) In subsection (4), "appropriate professional" means any of the following—
	(a) a doctor;
	(b) a psychiatrist;
	(c) a registered social worker;
	(d) a probation officer; or
	(e) a person of a description prescribed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.'.
	Amendment No. 12, in page 42, line 10, leave out 'thinks' and insert 'has reason to suspect'.
	Amendment No. 7, in page 43, line 9, leave out 'thinks' and insert 'has reason to believe'.
	Government amendments Nos. 133 to 135.
	Government amendment Nos. 137 and 138.
	Government amendment No. 239.
	Government amendment No. 139.

Annette Brooke: I welcome the Government amendments that establish in the Bill that under-18s will not automatically be barred from working with children or vulnerable adults without the right to representations. There are a number of other Government amendments in this group that we support, particularly those clarifying the situation regarding pornography.
	However, there is an aspect of the under-18s debate that the Government amendments do not cover. There are two circumstances in which the situation for under-18s is very different from that for adults. First, let us consider young people in a mutual sexual relationship where one party is under the age of consent—for example, a 17-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl. We know that such a relationship gives rise to difficulties under sexual offences legislation. Secondly, we must also consider young people who display sexually harmful behaviour.
	I believe that all children who have been abused—about 16 per cent. of all children have been abused—should be offered therapeutic services. However, it is estimated that 90 per cent. of children in such circumstances receive no substantial support. Those are horrendous statistics and as is known, many children and young people who have been abused go on to abuse other children and vulnerable people, which is why the provision of therapeutic services is absolutely vital. Our new clause 24 calls for the IBB to
	"make a referral for therapeutic purposes, as specified in regulations"—
	we are not attempting to write this provision into the Bill tonight, just the principle behind it—
	"for a person under the age of 18 included on the children's barred list after representations have been heard."
	A similar provision would also apply to the adults' barred list.
	There is no comprehensive national strategy for children and young people who sexually abuse other children. Different local authorities take very different approaches to this work. Policy is unclear and services on the ground are sporadic. There is a worrying lack of knowledge and threadbare provision, and in general there is poor access to specialist treatment provision for many children in need of such services. Treating sexual abusers in any way other than punitively may be politically unpopular, and it is difficult to communicate complex messages about that group of people.
	One difficultly is knowing whether sexual behaviour is harmless. Many children engage in activities that form a normal part of their sexual development, but sexual behaviour by young people exists on a continuum from mutually agreed experimentation to serious behaviour, such as multiple rape. Indeed, research shows that juveniles commit almost one quarter of all sexual offences, and such studies also contain clear evidence that many such children have suffered abuse or trauma. In particular, such behaviour is linked to sexual abuse, domestic violence and poor attachment, and a significant proportion of those who are seen by specialist services have severe emotional or learning difficulties.
	It is essential that child protection and criminal justice agencies work together and that there is a clear obligation on social services departments to respond to that group of children and young people from a child protection perspective. Children and young peoplewho go down the criminal justice route are unlikely to have their needs assessed adequately. The outcomes resulting from the different routes are inevitably very different. Social services may take no further action, whereas a custodial sentence can lead to a child being placed on the sex offenders register.
	Initial abusive behaviour is often the response of a vulnerable set of children to their own experiences and difficulties, and it is a way of expressing anger and exerting power by those with complex issues and needs. Such children are still in the process of growing up, and they can be helped away from spiralling patterns of sexual abuse by an appropriate therapeutic intervention.

Annette Brooke: That is the case most of the time. However, it is possible that parents may have abused a child who goes on to abuse others, which occurs more than occasionally.
	Given that intervention, I shall again raise a constituency case. My constituents are the parents of someone who is in jail and who will probably never come out. At the age of 14, that person committed a minor sexual offence, and his parents sought an independent psychiatric report, for which they had to pay themselves. The report concluded that their son posed no danger to others in society, but he went on to commit a terrible offence when he was aged 19, which was a tragedy for two sets of parents. We do not know whether treatment would have worked, if it had been available in that case, but it might have worked, which is why I passionately feel that we need the proper provision of therapeutic services nationwide. I want the Minister to accept that such a provision should be included in the Bill, which is the only way to make the service available to all those who need it. I hope that the Minister will give the matter his full consideration tonight, even at this very late stage.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would allow the tribunal to consider appeals from the IBB, if relevant facts emerge after the IBB has made its decision. We debated that point in Committee, where my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) made a number of valid points. However, having reread the Committee  Hansard, we do not feel that that the question has been adequately addressed and therefore make no apology for raising it again.
	Clause 4 contains the process that allows an appeal against a decision made by the IBB. It permits appeals to the tribunal, which was created by the Protection of Children Act 1999, against decisions not to remove people from the barred list or to include people on the barred list. When the Bill was originally published, an appeal was only permissible on a point of law, which caused considerable concern because a successful challenge would have had to establish that the IBB had made a mistake in the decision-making process, so we are pleased that the grounds for appeal have been extended to include the facts on which the IBB's decision is based.
	We suggest that appeals to the tribunal should also include appeals on facts not available to the IBB when the original decision was made, because there are likely to be situations in which relevant facts come to light after an IBB hearing. As clause 4(4) requires the tribunal's permission to make an appeal, it will not permit vexatious or merit-free appeals, but it will give the tribunal appropriate leeway to consider relevant activity. I ask the Minister to consider whether the Bill covers new facts emerging after the IBB's decision.
	Amendments Nos. 249 and 251 concur with Conservative amendments Nos. 204 and 205. They are based on the same premise that the definition in the Children Act 1989, which covers a range of physical as well as non-physical forms of mistreatment, was satisfactory. Our amendments would add "financial harm" to the definition of harm, and the Conservative amendments specifically mention "dignity", although I feel that that is included in the definition of "ill treatment" in the 1989 Act. The IBB will make critical decisions on risk of harm, but how can it make such decisions if the Bill does not include a clear definition of "harm"? Given the lack of a clear-cut definition, that cannot be the correct process by which to judge whether somebody should be on a barred list.
	Conservative amendments Nos. 11 and 12 would leave out "thinks" and insert "has reason to suspect", and we have signed up to them. We had a long debate on the matter in Committee, where my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and I were convinced that the use of the word "thinks" was wrong, which is one of many examples how this important Bill is woolly at the edges. It is all very well for the Minister to suggest that we are trying to encourage paedophiles to take up inappropriate activities, but throughout the passage of the Bill we have been committed to tightening up the definitions so that the mechanism is clear, consistent and controlled, which is important.
	The principle behind amendments Nos. 252 and 253 is the most important in this group. As Conservative Members have said, people will automatically be placed on the barred list, and there will be no right to make representations under the Bill as it stands. We have been told that the categories of offences that will lead to inclusion on the list without the right to make representations will be introduced in secondary legislation.
	Given the offences on the illustrative list, it is difficult to think that there will be too much to worry about. The problem is that we do not know precisely which list of offences the Minister will bring forth when the regulations are introduced. As I understand it, a list of the offences that will place somebody on the automatic barring list if they are convicted or cautioned will be approved by affirmative resolution. That means that we will have to vote against the whole list or for the whole list—there is nothing in between. There is no scope for affirmative resolution to modify the list.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and I attempted to table a suitable amendment, but its complexity was beyond our skills, which is probably why it was not selected. However, we received a great deal of support from the Bill Clerks who helped us to write it, and I express my gratitude for that. The amendment proposed a super-affirmative resolution that would allow us to make modifications when considering the secondary legislation. That procedure was used when we debated the Identity Cards Bill—

Parmjit Dhanda: Let me begin with the therapeutic services that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned. We have discussed the matter on several occasions, and when we met last week she was kind enough to let me know that she intended to raise it. Although I am sympathetic to the argument about providing therapeutic services, the Bill is not the appropriate place to do that, not least because it would involve the "Every Child Matters" onion of services. This is an enabling Bill to set up an independent barring board to make barring decisions, not a Bill related to those services.
	On automatic barring, the hon. Lady rightly says that there is a draft list on which we will consult widely. After 10 years, even those who are automatically barred will have a right to appeal, if they wish to take it up. We are discussing that list with stakeholders. If I may, I will read out some of the offences from the list of offences giving rise to automatic barring. In respect of the children's list, they include:
	"An offence contrary to section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (rape)",
	where the victim is under the age of 16,
	"An offence contrary to section 5 of the Sexual OffencesAct 1956 (sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of thirteen)...An offence contrary to section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape)",
	where the victim is under the age of 16,
	"An offence contrary to section 2 of the Sexual OffencesAct 2003 (assault by penetration)"
	where the victim is under 16, and
	"An offence contrary to section 5 of the Sexual OffencesAct 2003 (rape of a child under 13)".
	The adults' list refers to the Sexual OffencesAct 2003, which covers offences
	"against persons with a mental disorder impeding choice".
	That should give the House a flavour of the kind of offences that we believe should result in an automatic bar, without the right of appeal, although a right of review in 10 years will be built in, should a person want to exercise it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With thisit will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 29, 31, 33, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 56, 57, 64, 140 to143.
	Amendment No. 199, in schedule 3, page 45, line 5, at end insert—
	'(e) an employer using their professional judgment may produce a statement defining frequency in relation to that particular establishment if the definition of frequency is equal to or less than the definition in the Act'.
	Government amendments Nos. 145, 146, 149, 153, 156 to 159 and 169.

Parmjit Dhanda: As the Bill has progressed through both Houses, few matters have been more subject to debate and examination than what has come to be known as the "frequency test". Similarly, many of our key stakeholders have engaged us in constructive discussions about our intentions for that.
	In the Bill, "frequently" is key to the definition of most forms of regulated activity. For the bar, the requirements to check and the requirements to be subject to monitoring to apply, the activity in most contexts has to be carried out frequently. Debate has focused on two critical issues: first, whether barred individuals should be able to undertake any work involving close contact with vulnerable groups, and secondly, how employers and individuals should interpret the term "frequently". The Government amendments cover both issues.
	For the application of the bar, the concern put to us is that even very brief or occasional contact with a barred person constitutes too great a risk. We have received several representations from stakeholders, including the NSPCC, about that. We have listened carefully to the debate and further considered our original position. Consequently, I am now moving amendments that would prevent people on a barred list from engaging in regulated activity and make it a criminal offence for an employer to engage them, even when the activity was brief or occasional. I hope that the House will support that, although, after dividing on amendment No. 201, I am not sure whether that will happen. However, that is the rationale behind amendments Nos. 29 and 38, the result of which would be that, when an individual was barred, he would be barred—full stop. That is the right way forward. It means that a barred volunteer would be prevented from helping out at a summer youth camp, even if it took place over only a day or two.
	However, we recognise that, in an emergency, it may be necessary for barred individuals to engage ina specific regulated activity and that to criminalise them for doing so would be counter-productive. Amendments Nos. 28 and 37 create a defence when a barred individual has to engage in regulated activity to prevent harm and when no one else is around who could engage in that specific activity. That is intended to cover only a limited range of situations, for example, when a doctor barred from working with children has to administer first aid to a child who has had an accident in the street.
	Amendments Nos. 31, 43, 48, 141, 145, 146, 149, 156 and 159 will make consequential changes on that modified approach to the application of the bar elsewhere in the Bill. I should also mention that amendment No. 42 means that the frequency of an activity will also be irrelevant in relation to the requirement on personnel suppliers to ensure that an individual whom they supply is subject to monitoring.
	Also in that territory, amendments Nos. 143 and 158 are intended to ensure, for example, that a barred parent can enter a school to attend their child's parents' evening or that an individual on the adults' barred list can visit their sick mother in a care home. However, a barred person who carries out an activity in a school, for example, with the opportunity for contact with vulnerable groups will be prevented from doing so where the activity involves work, paid or unpaid, in connection with the purposes of the school.
	While a barred person will now be barred from regulated activity of any duration, we believe that the requirements to check and to be subject to monitoring should still apply only when the amount of contact is above a certain threshold. Our amendments will clarify that threshold, taking on board our debates on the issue.
	Amendments Nos. 140, 142, 153, 157 and 169 set out the circumstances in which the Government intend that the requirements to check and to be subject to monitoring should kick in. They ensure that activities that take place overnight will be regulated activity. They also define contact taking place on three or more days in a 30-day period as regulated activity. Those circumstances are referred to in amendment No. 169 as the "period condition". Similar revisions are made to the definition of controlled activity by amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 64.
	That means that employers will be required to check, and individuals will need to be subject to monitoring, if they are operating, for example, a conference crèche for children that lasts for three days or longer.

Maria Miller: Yet again, we are considering an important string of amendments—important because "frequent" and "occasional" have been among the most problematic terms in the Bill and have given cause to considerable debate in the House and in the other place. Also, a great many representations have been made by stakeholder groups.
	The Government's original position in Committee, when they were pressed on the matter, and indeed on Second Reading, was that those definitions did not require further clarification because they would take their "everyday meaning"—despite the fact that both terms are relative and that there is no generally accepted everyday meaning for either "frequent" or "occasional" in English law.
	Many hon. Members, including those on the Conservative Benches, felt that to leave such a key concept undefined would be to store up a great deal of trouble, not to mention create extra work for the army of lawyers that has clearly been involved in drafting the Bill. Therefore, we are glad that the Government have worked over the summer, through a working party including many reputable organisations, to reconsider the position and take into account some of the debate in Committee. The tabling of amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 64, which tightly define "frequently" as any two-day period occurring in a 30-day period, has allowed us to start to get a feeling for what is meant here.
	Amendment No. 169 takes that welcome clarification a little further by specifying that that new "period condition", as it is called, is also satisfied if the activity in question occurs between 2 am and 6 am, covering another area that was debated hotly in Committee regarding overnight stays. That activity also needs to give the opportunity for face-to-face contact with children or vulnerable adults.
	No doubt the wording is better than the original, but Conservative Members feel that there is room for a little more improvement. Before we get on to that, I want to ask the Minister to provide further clarification on amendments Nos. 33, 45 and 49, which, again, will introduce a new idea to the Bill on Report. Those amendments provide that the courts may take into account the extent to which employers and individuals guilty of offences under clauses 8, 10 and 11 have taken account of guidance as to the meaning of "frequency". We have not debated that previously, and it would be interesting to know the Government's intent. As we have said, the vetting and barring system must be robust— the reason for the Bill is that the current system is not robust. It must also be simple for employers and employees to navigate and understand; otherwise, it will not move us forward.
	The amendments might suggest—perhaps the Minister will elaborate—that the Government think that the new rules will not be well understood, and that employers and employees may unintentionally misapply the rules and be guilty of criminal offences. Is the Government's intention to try to provide a caveat in case of misunderstanding? If so, we might need to discuss that further. Perhaps the Minister will also enlighten the House as to how often he expects the provisions to be used, and whether he will monitor them to assess whether there is a fundamental flaw in the working of the Bill. Will he tell us how he will conduct that monitoring, and what actions will be taken?
	As many hon. Members and other groups have mentioned, the amendments also touch on the need to communicate clearly to employers and employees their rights and responsibilities under the law, and to inform barred persons which activities they can and cannot engage in. The system is complex, so it is imperative that the Government communicate adequately to all concerned, as we have discussed. However, amendments Nos. 33, 45 and 49 imply an expectation that in at least some cases people will commit offences due to a lack of understanding of the rules. By tabling the amendments, perhaps the Minister has inadvertently reiterated the official Opposition's case, which is supported by our Liberal colleagues, that further communication is needed.
	On a related point, we are also concerned that the Bill does not do enough to involve those on the front line who will try to implement this increasingly complex legislation, particularly employers. In Committee, the Government said that there was a great difference between different settings, so the idea of one definition of frequency simply would not work, and that flexibility was needed to ensure that the Bill would work in practice. Obviously, the Government have slightly changed their position, and now have a much tighter definition.
	Our amendment No. 199 would provide a little more of what the Government have been trying to achieve in the Bill—not just providing a structure and a process but engendering a culture of vigilance among those dealing with children and vulnerable adults—and could be just what the Minister is looking for. It allows employers to use their own professional judgment to determine what constitutes a frequent activity in relation to their own setting, but only if the definition were equal to or less than that contained in the Bill—two days in any 30-day period. The amendment would put some of the responsibility on those who must implement the Bill, rather than perpetuate a tick-box culture in which it is felt that as soon as the Bill has been put in place, everything that is required has been done. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to the amendment. The maximum period defined by amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 64 would not be threatened, but more people would be involved in the process.
	Amendments Nos. 28 and 37 would allow barred persons to engage in regulated activities in emergency situations, of which the Minister gave an excellent example. Again, we have not debated the issue previously, so perhaps the Minister needs to provide a little further explanation . Although we have not tabled an amendment because of lack of time, given the extent to which certain individuals look for loopholes in the law—let us not revisit Kazakhstan at this stage, but I would tell the House that its capital is Almaty—does not he think that the two amendments may have a perverse consequence? Amendments Nos. 28 and 37 would give barred persons a right to engage in regulated activities in an emergency. For instance, a doctor who is barred would be able to administer first aid to a child who had collapsed. What would apply in a situation in which an individual who is not monitored, as opposed to barred, wants to provide emergency assistance to a child or vulnerable adult? It could be argued that such a person would be in a worse situation than one who has been barred.
	Perhaps the Minister needs to provide further explanation, but there is no provision in the Bill to allow those who are not monitored to administer what would otherwise be defined as a monitored activity. Last week, there was a wonderful example, which I am sure that the Minister heard about, of a lollipop man being taken ill. A local council did not feel it appropriate to permit any other individual to help children cross a road, and the police unfortunately could not supply the manpower. Instead of having an adult help them cross the road, children had to cross a major road, which had been associated with a number of fatalities, by themselves. Will the Minister clarify whether amendments Nos. 28 and 37 would mean that a barred person would be able to help a child who was in danger trying to cross a road? Would the non-monitored person be at a disadvantage? I am sure that the Minister has already thought about that potential perverse outcome of the Bill, but because we cannot debate the issue further, given the lateness of tabling, I would very much value his feedback.

Annette Brooke: We are grateful that the Government have listened and have tabled amendments in relation to the definition of frequency. I was troubled when the Committee stage finished, as I genuinely thought that a big loophole existed in relation to five-day overnight camps, on which I spoke at great length. I am relieved that the amendments have been tabled. I thank the Minister for listening, and the civil servants who have worked hard on the amendments.
	I do not share the concerns of the hon. Memberfor Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) about exceptions, such as cases in which someone responds to an emergency. I have a friend whose heart stopped beating, and10 years later, we can truly say that she is here only because there happened to be a doctor walking next to her on the pavement. If he had been on the adults' barred list, he could not have carried out that function, so I understand the purpose of the amendment, even if there is concern about unintended consequences. I have a few worries about the implementation of amendment No. 199, as problems with employment law and other legislation could arise. However, I entirely understand the sentiments behind it, and what it is trying to achieve.

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 9, line 39, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
	'(1) Regulated activity falls within this section if it is carried out for the purposes of or in connection with any of the following—
	(a) an establishment for the detention of persons in lawful custody (within the meaning of section 44(7)(a) to (c));
	(b) a recreational, social, sporting or educational activity provided wholly or mainly for vulnerable adults;
	(c) a course of education or instruction which is provided wholly or mainly for vulnerable adults and is of a prescribed description;
	(d) the provision of services, by or on behalf of a person who provides or manages housing, to vulnerable adults in connection with that housing;
	(e) welfare services of a prescribed description;
	(f) dealing with payments by a person appointed to receive them as mentioned in section 44(10)(f).
	(2) Activity does not fall within this section if the individual engaging in the activity is a prison officer acting in the course of his duty.
	(2A) In subsection (2) "prison officer" includes—
	(a) a prisoner custody officer within the meaning of section 89(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53);
	(b) a custody officer within the meaning of section 12(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
	(2B) Activity does not fall within this section by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) if—
	(a) the activity is carried out by or for a local authority in connection with the provision of community care services within the meaning of section 46 of the National Health Service and Community CareAct 1990;
	(b) the activity is carried out by or in an establishment in relation to which a requirement to register arises under section 11 of the Care Standards Act 2000;
	(c) the activity is carried out by an agency in relation to which such a requirement arises;
	(d) the activity is carried out by a person to whom Part 2 of that Act applies in pursuance of an order under section 42 of that Act of 2000;
	(e) the activity is carried out by an NHS body within the meaning of section 15(3) or by a person who provides health care for such a body.'.
	No. 51, in page 10, line 23, leave out '(c), (d), (e) and (f)' and insert '(b), (c), (d) and (e)'. —[Mr. Dhanda.]

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 12, line 1, after 'person' insert
	'or it is carried out by the same person on more than two days in any period of 30 days'.
	No. 57, in page 12, line 6, at end insert
	'or it is carried out by the same person on more than two days in any period of 30 days'.
	No. 58, in page 12, line 6, at end insert—
	'( ) it is carried out by the person while engaging in any form of work (whether or not for gain),'.
	No. 59, in page 12, line 9, at end insert—
	'( ) An activity falls within this subsection if—
	(a) it consists in making payments under section 17A of the Children Act 1989 or the provision of assistance either in connection with the making of such payments or securing the provision of services paid for out of them,
	(b) it is carried out frequently by the same person or it is carried out by the same person on more than two days in any period of 30 days, and
	(c) it gives the person the opportunity mentioned in subsection (7)(a).'.
	No. 60, in page 12, line 9, at end insert—
	'(4A) An activity falls within this subsection if it is carried out as mentioned in subsection (7B) frequently and it gives a person carrying out the activity the opportunity to have access to—
	(a) health, educational or social services records relating to children;
	(b) information provided pursuant to section 117(1) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000;
	(c) in the case of a person carrying out an activity mentioned in subsection (7B)(b), records of family proceedings (within the meaning of section 8(3) of the Children Act 1989) held by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service;
	(d) in the case of a person carrying out an activity mentioned in subsection (7B)(c), records of family proceedings (within the meaning of section 8(3) of the Children Act 1989) held by the National Assembly for Wales.'.
	No. 61, in page 12, line 12, leave out 'or (4)' and insert '(4) or (4A)'.
	No. 62, in page 12, line 21, at end insert—
	'(7B) The activity is carried out—
	(a) for, or on behalf of, a local authority (in the exercise of its educational or social services functions);
	(b) for, or on behalf of, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service;
	(c) for, or on behalf of, the National Assembly for Wales (in the exercise of its functions under Part 4 of the Children Act 2004 (Welsh family proceedings));
	(d) for, or on behalf of, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority;
	(e) for, or on behalf of, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England;
	(f) for, or on behalf of, HM Chief Inspector of Education and Training in Wales;
	(g) for, or on behalf of, an establishment or agency in respect of which a requirement to register arises under section 11 of the Care Standards Act 2000.
	(7C) In this section—
	"educational records" includes individual child information within the meaning of—
	(a) section 99 of Childcare Act 2006,
	(b) that section as modified by section 100 of that Act, or
	(c) section 101 of that Act;
	"local authority"—
	(d) in relation to the education functions of alocal authority, has the same meaning as in section 579(1) of the Education Act 1996;
	(e) in any other case, has the meaning given bysection 1 of the Local Authorities Social Services Act 1970;
	"social services functions" has the meaning given by section 1A of that Act;
	"social services records" means records obtained or held by a local authority in the exercise of its social services functions.'.
	No. 63, in page 12, line 22 leave out '(7)' andinsert '(7C)'. —[Mr. Dhanda.]

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 14, line 33, leave out 'the prescribed fee' and insert
	'such fee (if any) as is prescribed'.
	No. 69, in page 14, line 41, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
	'(3A) The Secretary of State must—
	(a) provide the individual with any disclosable information that he has, or
	(b) notify the individual that he has no disclosable information.
	(3B) Disclosable information is information provided to the Secretary of State under subsection (3)(b) in relation to the individual, but does not include information to which subsection (6) applies.
	(3C) Subsection (3A) does not apply if the individual made an application for an enhanced criminal record certificate (under section 113B of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50)) simultaneously with his monitoring application.'.
	No. 70, in page 15, line 16, leave outsubsection (7).— [Mr. Dhanda.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendmentsNos. 79 to 82, 84, 94, 97, 99 to 108, 136, 150, 178 to 180 and 185 to 191.

Amendments made: No. 235, in page 23, leave out line 38 and insert—
	'( ) But, in that subsection, relevant information does not include—
	(a) information that any of the events mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and (b) has occurred in relation to the person;
	(b) the information mentioned in subsection (2)(b);
	(c) information falling within paragraph 17(5) of Schedule 2.'.
	No. 81, in page 23, line 40, leave out 'the following table' and insert
	'entry 1 or 8 of the table in section 33(8)'.
	No. 82, in page 24, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 44.
	No. 83, in page 25, line 4, leave out subsection (8).
	No. 84, in page 25, line 10, leave outsubsection (9). —[Mr. Dhanda.]

Amendments made: No. 89, in page 26, line 37, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
	'has information that it thinks is relevant to a supervisory authority'.
	No. 90, in page 27, line 2, at end insert
	'or information that any of the events mentioned in section (supervisory authorities: notification of barring &c in respectof children)(1)(a), (b) and (c) or (supervisory authorities: notification of barring &c in respect of vulnerable adults)(1)(a), (b) and (c) has occurred in relation to a person'.
	No. 91, in page 27, line 3, leave outsubsection (4). —[Mr. Dhanda.]

Amendments made: No. 140, in page 44, line 33, at end insert
	'or the period condition is satisfied'.
	No. 141, in page 44, line 34, leave outsub-paragraph (2).
	No. 142, in page 44, line 38, at end insert
	'or the period condition is satisfied'.
	No. 143, in page 45, line 1, leave out 'the activity' and insert—
	'( ) it is carried out by a person while engaging in any form of work (whether or not for gain),
	( ) it'.
	No. 144, in page 45, line 22, at end insert—
	'(5C) It is a regulated activity relating to children to foster a child (as mentioned in section (Fostering)).'.
	No. 145, in page 46, line 20, leave out ', (2)'.
	No. 146, in page 46, line 23, leave out 'and (2)'.
	No. 147, in page 46, line 35, at end insert—
	'(f) driving a vehicle which is being used only for the purpose of conveying children and any person supervising or caring for the children pursuant to arrangements made in prescribed circumstances.'.
	No. 148, in page 47, line 9 [Schedule 3], at end insert—
	'( ) But a person does not moderate a public electronic interactive communications service as mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)(b) or (c) unless he has—
	(a) access to the content of the matter;
	(b) contact with users of the service.'.
	No. 149, in page 47, line 14, leave out '(2),'.
	No. 150, in page 47, line 36, leave out 'childminding or'.
	No. 151, in page 48, line 16, leave out 'or chief executive' and insert
	', chief executive or member of staff'.
	No. 152, in page 49, line 11, at end insert—
	 'Exceptions
	The Secretary of State may, by order, provide that in such circumstances as are specified an activity which is a regulated activity in relation to children is not to be treated as a regulated activity.'.
	No. 153, in page 49, line 15, at end insert
	'or the period condition is satisfied'.
	No. 154, in page 49, line 23, at end insert—
	'(ea) driving a vehicle which is being used only for the purpose of conveying vulnerable adults and any person caring for the vulnerable adults pursuant to arrangements made in prescribed circumstances;'.
	No. 155, in page 49, line 32, at end insert—
	'( ) But a person does not moderate a public electronic interactive communications service as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) or (c) unless he has—
	(a) access to the content of the matter;
	(b) contact with users of the service.'.
	No. 156, in page 49, line 33, leave outsub-paragraph (3).
	No. 157, in page 49, line 40, at end insert
	'or the period condition is satisfied'.
	No. 158, in page 49, line 40, at end insert—
	'( ) it is carried out by a person while engaging in any form of work (whether or not for gain),'.
	No. 159, in page 50, line 3, leave out ', (3)'.
	No. 160, in page 50, line 5, after 'the' insert 'inspection'.
	No. 161, in page 50, line 9, leave out from beginning to 'is' in line 10.
	No. 162, in page 50, leave out line 12 and insert—
	'(7) Inspection functions are functions relating to the inspection of—'.
	No. 163, in page 50, line 12, at end insert—
	'( ) a local authority (within the meaning of section 1 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 42)) in the exercise of its social services functions (within the meaning of that Act),'.
	No. 164, in page 50, line 19, at end insert 'or
	( ) any person, other than a local authority, providing English local authority social services or Welsh local authority social services within the meaning of that section,'.
	No. 165, in page 50, leave out line 20 and insert—
	'in so far as the inspection relates to social services, care, treatment or therapy provided for vulnerable adults by the establishment, agency, person or body.'.
	No. 166, in page 50, line 24, leave out sub-paragraphs (9) and (10) and insert—
	'(9) The exercise of a function of a person mentioned in paragraph 6A(1) is a regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults.'.
	No. 167, in page 50, line 33, at end insert—
	'6A (1) The persons referred to in paragraph 6(9) are—
	(a) member of a relevant local government body;
	(b) director of adult social services of a local authority in England;
	(c) director of social services of a local authority in Wales;
	(d) Commissioner for older people in Wales or deputy Commissioner for older people in Wales;
	(e) charity trustee of vulnerable adults' charity;
	(f) member or chief executive or member of staff of IBB.
	(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a), a person is a member of a relevant local government body if—
	(a) he is a member of a local authority and discharges any social services functions of a local authority which relate wholly or mainly to vulnerable adults;
	(b) he is a member of an executive of a local authority which discharges any such functions;
	(c) he is a member of a committee of an executive of a local authority which discharges any such functions;
	(d) he is a member of an area committee, or any other committee, of a local authority which discharges any such functions.
	(3) Any reference in sub-paragraph (2) to a committee includes a reference to any sub-committee which discharges any functions of that committee.
	(4) A charity is a vulnerable adults' charity if the individuals who are workers for the charity normally include individuals engaging in regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults.
	(5) An individual is a worker for a charity if he does work under arrangements made by the charity; but the arrangements referred to in this sub-paragraph do not include any arrangements made for purposes which are merely incidental to the purposes for which the charity is established.
	(6) In this paragraph—
	"area committee" has the same meaning as in section 18 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22);
	"charity" and "charity trustee" have the same meanings as in the Charities Act 1993 (c. 10);
	"executive", in relation to a local authority, has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22);
	"local authority" has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996 (c. 56);
	"social services functions", in relation to a local authority, has the same meaning as in the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c. 42).
	(7) In relation to a local authority—
	(a) which is a children's services authority (within the meaning of the Children Act 2004), and
	(b) which has not appointed a director of children's services under section 18 of that Act,
	in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above the word "adult" must be ignored.'.
	No. 168, in page 50, line 33, at end insert—
	'The Secretary of State may, by order, provide that in such circumstances as are specified an activity which is a regulated activity in relation to vulnerable adults is not to be treated as a regulated activity.'.
	No. 169, in page 50, line 33, at end insert—

Children Act 1989 (c. 41)
	1 (1) In Schedule 9A to the Children Act 1989 (child minding and day care for young children), after paragraph 4(2)(b) insert—
	"(ba) he is barred from regulated activity relating to children (within the meaning of section 3(2) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006);".
	Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (c. 30)
	2 The Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 is amended as follows.
	3 Section 2(4) (advisory functions of General Teaching Council) is omitted.
	4 In section 3(3) (eligibility for registration), after paragraph (a) insert—
	"(aa) barred from regulated activity relating to children (within the meaning of section 3(2) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006),".
	5 (1) Section 15 (supply of information following dismissal etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) for "a person's services on a ground mentioned in section 142 of the Education Act 2002" substitute "the services of a registered teacher on a ground mentioned in subsection (1A)";
	(b) in paragraph (b)—
	(i) for "a person's" substitute "a registered teacher's";
	(ii) for "section" substitute "subsection";
	(iii) for "the person" substitute "the teacher".
	(3) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) The grounds are—
	(a) misconduct;
	(b) professional incompetence;
	(c) conviction of a relevant offence within the meaning of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2."
	(4) In subsection (2)—
	(a) for "a person" substitute "a teacher";
	(b) for the words from "such of the following" to the end substitute "the Council".
	(5) In subsection (3)—
	(a) for "a person" substitute "a teacher";
	(b) for the words from "such of the following" to the end substitute "the General Teaching Council for Wales".
	(6) Omit subsection (4).
	(7) In subsection (5) for the definition of "relevant employer" substitute—
	""relevant employer" means—
	(a) a local education authority;(b) a person exercising a function relating to the provision of education on behalf of a local education authority; (c) the proprietor of a school;(d) the governing body of a further education institution;
	"education" includes vocational, social, physical and recreational training;
	"proprietor" and "school" have the meanings given in the Education Act 1996;
	"further education institution" has the meaning given in section 140 of the Education Act 2002;".
	6 (1) Section 15A (supply of information by contractor, agency, etc) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) for "another person (the "worker")" substitute "a registered teacher (the "teacher")".
	(3) In subsection (2)—
	(a) in paragraph (a) for "section 142 of the Education Act 2002" substitute "section 15(1A)";
	(b) in paragraph (b) for "section" substitute "subsection";
	(c) in paragraph (c)—
	(i) for "worker" substitute "teacher";
	(ii) for "section" substitute "subsection".
	(4) In subsection (3)—
	(a) for "worker" substitute "teacher";
	(b) for the words from "such of the following" to the end substitute "the Council".
	(5) In subsection (4)—
	(a) for "worker" substitute "teacher";
	(b) for the words from "such of the following" to the end substitute "the General Teaching Council for Wales".
	(6) In subsection (9)—
	(a) for "Subsections (4) and" substitute "Subsection";
	(b) for "they apply" substitute "it applies".
	7 In paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 2 (disciplinary powers of Council), for the words from "of the powers exercisable" to the end substitute "of the powers exercisable by the Independent Barring Board under the Safeguarding Vulnerable GroupsAct 2006".
	 Protection of Children Act 1999 (c. 14)
	8 (1) The Protection of Children Act 1999 is amended as follows.
	(2) Sections 1 to 4C and 7 (list of persons considered unsuitable to work with children) are omitted.
	(3) In section 9 (the Tribunal)—
	(a) in subsection (1), omit the words from "which shall exercise" to the end;
	(b) in subsection (2)—
	(i) omit paragraphs (a) and (b);
	(ii) in paragraph (d), for "68, 86, 87 or 88" substitute "or 68";
	(iii) omit paragraph (e);
	(c) omit subsection (3A).
	(4) In section 12 (interpretation)—
	(a) in subsection (1), omit all the definitions except the definition of "prescribed";
	(b) omit subsections (2) to (3A).
	 Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14)
	9 Sections 80 to 89 and 91 to 93 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (list of persons considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults) are omitted.
	 Childcare Act 2006
	10 (1) In section 75(3) of the Childcare Act 2006 (disqualification from registration), after paragraph (b) insert—
	"(ba) he is barred from regulated activity relating to children (within the meaning of section 3(2) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006);".

Maria Miller: Conservative Members agree with the intention behind the Bill, and welcome the debate that we have had since its introduction in the other place in February. I commend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), and his colleagues for the way in which they have listened to the arguments, and for their willingness to amend the Bill and thus—we hope—improve it, although I am sure that Members in all parts of the House wish they had listened a little earlier to some of the points raised. We could then have avoided the deluge of 25 new clauses, four new schedules and 250 Government amendments that was presented only a short time before today's debate.
	The Bill has been expected and consulted on for more than two years, and has been debated since February. It is therefore difficult to understand why so many Government amendments were tabled at the eleventh hour. Many provide the basic details of how the vetting and barring scheme will work. We have been asking for those details for the past six months, and they should have been thought through before, rather than after, the Bill was presented to us. With that in mind, I thank the teams from the Department for Education and Skills and the Public Bill Office, who have worked tirelessly and often under great pressureas a result of the Government's late tabling of amendments. They have, as always, been an integral and invaluable part of the process.
	Some four years after the tragedy that led to the Bichard inquiry, there are still too many examples of existing vetting procedures being implemented haphazardly. That was highlighted only in June, in Ofsted's report on recruitment practices in schools.
	We were presented with a somewhat hollow Bill in February, despite the two years that had elapsed since the Bichard report. There was a lack of definition, a lack of detail on the processes to be followed and a disregard for many of the findings in the consultations that had been held—specifically the DFES's own post-Bichard consultation, which called for much of the clarity in terms and definitions for which we, and other Members, have continued to press today. Even after more than six months, there are still no definitions of some of the key terms in the Bill.
	My colleagues and I are pleased that the debate has led to some changes. Much of the spadework in the other place was done by my noble Friend Lady Buscombe, both in debate and in behind-the-scenes meetings, on the issue of read-across between the vulnerable adults' and the children's barred lists. It was widely felt to be a fundamental flaw in the Bill as initially presented.
	I commend the work done on Second Reading and in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). As always, he brought his wit and depth of knowledge to debates in Committee and on Report. I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for St. Albans (Anne Main), for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) and for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) for their continued support and their contributions to our debate. We must not forget our two Committee Chairmen—my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)—who oversaw that particular stage and, despite some trying times, kept our debate in reasonably good humour.
	Considerable improvements have been made in respect of read-across, how some detailed processes will work and clearer definitions. Many of the amendments will prove fundamental to the operation of the legislation and we should thank the Government for them. I realise that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), has been in a difficult position because he inherited the Bill from the Minister for Children and Families. He was not in the driving seat—or, indeed, even in the Department—when the Bill was first introduced. Perhaps he would agree that the handling of the Bill has not been an example of great parliamentary process and that a review might be in order.
	Conservative Members remain concerned about clauses dealing with the position of those who are barred if they inadvertently apply for monitored jobs and we have debated the issue extensively. We are also concerned, as we stated clearly in Committee, about the Government's intention to expand the number of people monitored under the Bill in future. As we know, the Government have the ability to achieve that without much further debate in the House. We shall certainly monitor that matter closely. When the Bill was introduced, the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) firmly stated that one of the principles behind the Bill was that the breadth of the bar imposed should be proportionate to the risk. I hope that Ministers continue to adhere to that and that they are open to revisiting the provisions if they appear to have created unintended consequences, perhaps along the lines that we have discussed today.
	The amount of reworking of the Bill at such a late stage is also worrying because a number of areas require further attention. We have already mentioned the use of vague terms and we have had little time properly to debate critical issues such as the development of the IMPACT police national database. It is now delayed until 2010, yet it was one of Bichard's key criticisms of the progress that the Government have made so far. Overseas workers is another matter—we debated it earlier—that was virtually ignored in the later stages of our debate on the Government amendments.
	We wish the Bill well as it passes from here to wherever it goes next, but there remains a need for a fundamental change to the process of vetting and monitoring. We all agree that it needs to take place, but we urge the Government closely to watch the impact of the Bill in practice. We support the intention to make the vetting system better, but we do not want the Bill to become an unwieldy instrument that, instead of simplifying the position, adds even more complexity. In short, we simply hope that the Bill does not become a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We hope that the Government will monitor the impact in as much detail as possible as the Bill is implemented.

communities and Local Government

Grant Shapps: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the Freedom of Information Act 2000, especially as the debate coincides with some proposed changes to the Act, which are in danger of changing it for the worse.
	I start at the point when the Act was first imagined by the then Leader of the Opposition who spoke about freedom of information at an awards ceremony in March 1996. He said that
	"information is power and any Government's attitude about sharing information with the people actually says a great deal about how it views power itself and how it views the relationship between itself and the people who elected it."
	Wise words.
	We should congratulate the Government on introducing the Freedom of Information Act. It was a good step in the right direction, which has, by and large, increased the ability of members of the public to get access to information, in particular from Government bodies. As I shall explain, the Act has not worked quite as the then Leader of the Opposition intended and that gives rise to serious concern about some of the changes to be proposed shortly.
	Although the Act was passed in 2000, it has been in operation only for about 22 months. In that time, a vast array of freedom of information requests has been made to some of the 115,000 bodies open to such requests. The responses have been informative and worth while, and in the wider public interest. However, an Act that came into force so recently has not yet had time to settle down, so that we can see how it performs in reality. I draw attention to the fact that there has yet to be even one occasion when any decision about whether to supply information under the terms of the Act has been challenged in the High Court. Not one decision has yet been challenged in the High Court.
	Many decisions have been challenged with the help of the Information Commissioner's office, which is quite right. However, until the Act reaches such a state of maturity that it is actually tested in the courts, it is premature to talk of changing it. I shall say more about that later.
	Personally, I find the Act most helpful. Recently, I achieved the release of information, through the Act, about the scale of cancelled appointments in the NHS; for example, we found out that 1,000 operations are cancelled every day, due to various equipment, bed, staff and management problems. The Department of Health was unable to provide that information when I asked for it in parliamentary questions, but the beauty of the Freedom of Information Act is that we can go to the source. Indeed, it was ironic that on the day that I reported the information that I had uncovered, I heard that the Department of Health was trying to claim that my figures were inaccurate. In fact, the Department had no way of knowing whether my figures were inaccurate—in reality, they were entirely accurate—because it did not collate the figures. I tested that point through a question in the House, and the Freedom of Information Act provided me with the opportunity to release the information for the wider public good, so the measure certainly works.
	However, when asking a variety of questions via the Act, I came across a number of concerns. My principal concern relates to the way in which the Act is operating. It is being pretty much openly flouted, and the Government should take that on board. Today I issued the results of research carried out on the last three freedom of information requests that I made, two to national health service trusts and one to local education authorities. I found that in those three requests—almost 1,000 pieces of information were requested in total—as many as 50 per cent. of those asked to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act failed to respond on time or with information that related to the question asked. One third failed to respond at all.
	If one third of public organisations are failing to respond to perfectly proper requests under the Freedom of Information Act, we have a problem. For clarification, the House should note that these are not instances where the public bodies failed to respond on the basis of cost or on the basis that it was not in the public interest, which are two of the most obvious reasons why bodies would not respond. The one third that have not responded simply did not reply to the FOI request—not just once, but in the case of the NHS trusts, serially. So those are serial offenders, consistently breaking the law by not complying with the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. With the LEAs I found the figures to be somewhat lower, but still worrying. About a third of LEAs did not reply or replied late or with inaccurate information, and about a quarter failed to reply at all.
	I see a systemic problem with the current system. I call on the Minister to tell us this evening what steps will be taken to improve the performance of the Freedom of Information Act. I called the debate with that in mind, but since then something has happened that has heightened my concern. In response to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Government released a report that seeks to make amendments to the FOI Act. The House would do well to study those amendments in great detail and express its concern.
	The amendments appear to make it harder for the public to use the Act in order to obtain information. Regardless whether it would be harder or not, it would certainly be more expensive. The information that has drifted out so far is confused. Can the Minister tell us whether it is the Government's intention to introduce a charge for requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act? I should appreciate clarification.
	Whether or not a charge is introduced by a reformed Act, we understand that the Government are considering allowing a couple of things to happen that would make it much harder to obtain information. The first consideration is to group together various requests made by one individual, and allow the authority that is being challenged for the information to claim that it would cost too much to answer. That is not fair play. I am not the only one who has serious reservations about that. The Constitutional Affairs Committee stated:
	"These changes, if implemented, would fly in the face of the Government's stated desire of encouraging an open culture and have the potential to block important requests where it would be in the public interest to disclose information."
	That, we understand, is the first way in which the Government intend to make it harder for the public to gain information.
	There is a second route that the Government are considering, whereby they would allow public bodies to add up the reading or studying time—the so-called consultation time—in order to decide whether or not the cost of answering a question would exceed the current limit. Therefore, as I understand this—again, I would appreciate clarification when the Minister responds—the Government might be making it much easier for a public body to claim that a request is simply too expensive to respond to. That is entirely wrong if it is done by, so to speak, massaging the accounting time in respect of answering the question. No wonder these changes are causing great concern; for instance, an early-day motion is now before the House urging the Government to row back on the proposed changes.
	When the Government introduced the concept of freedom of information, the then Leader of the Opposition talked about it being a real test of the Government's relationship with the public. On that occasion, he was absolutely right. It would be a great shame to destroy an Act that has done quite some good, and that has enabled a lot of information to come out in the public interest, by making it harder to use that Act by making it more expensive to do so, and by failing to address a fundamental problem that we seem to face at present, which is that a surprisingly high number of requests are failing to be answered. I would be grateful to hear what the Minister intends to do about those bodies that are serially offending—they are flouting the law—by refusing to supply information that would be very much in the public interest.

Vera Baird: I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) on securing this Adjournment debate on an important issue. I begin by reminding him and other Members that it was this Labour Government who introduced the freedom of information legislation; and may I furthermore remind him that his party had 18 years in government in which to try to pass such legislation if they had wished to do so—indeed, they could have walked it through Parliament—but they chose instead to cling to secrecy? There is not a lot of letting sunshine win the day in that regard, or any other chink of light—there was something of the night about that Government perhaps, in terms of the darkness that they intended perpetually to keep the public. As the hon. Gentleman said, information gives citizens power, and his party decided not to give the public that power against them.
	This Government brought into force for the first time a statutory right to know. The hon. Gentleman's constituents do not need his assistance to find out how public services are performing; they can ask for themselves. As the recent Constitutional Affairs Committee report on this legislation stated, the Act is a significant success. It has made available thousands upon thousands of pieces of information in just 22 short months from more than 115,000 public bodies, and that information is now being used constructively in the main. It is important to understand how far we have come since the Conservative days when citizens were not entitled to information about the number of operations that had been cancelled, or the number of management consultants that had been used by any branch of the hon. Gentleman's Government; they would simply never have known, and their ability to question the Government was therefore significantly weakened.
	This is fully retrospective legislation, with a statutory right of appeal to an independent regulator. The hon. Gentleman argues that some authorities have not answered his questions in time. I understand that he asked some questions in July, and others in August, of local education authorities, health authorities and primary care trusts, and he gives us what he describes as the figures. I do not know which parties were in political control of the LEAs that chose not to reply. Does he know whether they were Tory authorities, for instance?

Grant Shapps: Now we have got off the politics, we are making some progress. Reference has been made to the idea that if authorities do not respond, the courts or the Information Commissioner is the right way to go. I am amazed that Ministers are not more concerned to deal with the fact that up to half of authorities are not responding on time and that one third of authorities are not responding at all. It cannot be right to say that when the law is flouted, the only solutionis to turn to the courts and the Information Commissioner without any concern to correct an obvious flaw in the law itself.

Vera Baird: No, I do not accept that at all. The research was built on top of an internal review that was already producing findings of a similar nature to those that Frontier Economics found. Nor do I accept that the review has been carried out superficially. The figures are, of course, readily available to the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to see them. It is entirely right and proper that we should not permit the cost of research to be transferred from the Government, to the disadvantage of most members of the public who simply want their questions answered, when there are narrower ways for the professionals to frame their requests.
	The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield has made some good points, but I hope that I have satisfactorily set out that the way forward that we propose and are taking soundings on is the one that will involve the least injury to the availability of information to the public. It is entirely our duty to consider implementing it, because we must ensure that inquiries do not run away with time that ought to be spent by officials on delivering core public services. We are making progress to ever more open government, but, equally, we must continue to safeguard effective government and public administration.
	We are committed to promoting the benefits of freedom of information and to providing information to people about matters that affect their everyday lives. The changes will continue to support the important underlying principle of the Freedom of Information Act, but unless we face up to the reality, we risk exhausting our resources on those who have spotted a convenient vehicle for their mischief, and sometimes their indulgence or their idle curiosity. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard some examples of that kind of inquiry, but one that he might not have heard of was an inquiry about how much we paid to supply Ferrero Rocher chocolates to all our foreign embassies.
	I refuse to let resources be diverted from those for whom this Government introduced the Freedom of Information Act: the well intentioned, the genuine, the unfamiliar, the inexpert and the citizen who just wants to ask for information. The ability of those citizens to carry out that simple task risks being compromised by the voracious demands of some who are far better able than those ordinary citizens to help themselves. We are sounding out proposals that are capable of getting that balance right.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes toTen o'clock.